Most Emailed Articles

Don Wildmon's American Family Association has been increasingly
on the forefront of the Radical Religious Right and the efforts to impose a very
conservative, evangelical Christian morality on America. His organization began in the late
1970s with attempts to remove Playboy magazine from convenience stores and is currently very
active in attempts to remove Howard Stern's radio and television programs from airing in various
markets. A high-priority target of Wildmon and the AFA are homosexuals and their efforts to
obtain a certain degree of respect, tolerance, and rights in our society.

In an ironic twist of language which even George Orwell would be proud of, people
like Wildom have begun complaining that when people react negatively to their moralizing
on homosexuality, this represents anti-Christian hatred and bigotry. Apparently,
their proclamations should be considered immune to any sort of critique or moral
outrage.

All of us, hetero- and homosexual, should recognize that this is a primary issue
in the so-called "culture wars" in America. This is where
the Relgious Right is focusing a significant percentage of its attention because,
if they lose on this, they may never again have the chance to impose their vision
upon our society by peaceful means. They really need to win on this in order to maintain
any degree of status and importance in American political life.

A losing battle?

Fortunately, they are slowly but surely losing ground, and Wildmon openly admits this. As I have
argued in an earlier feature, we atheists and freethinkers should take a keen interest in this.
Although it may not seem like "our fight, " every battle to expand liberty and promote
freedom should be actively supported by us. In addition to being glad of the prospect of seeing
the influence of the Religious Right diminish, we must keep in mind that should they win, we
will almost certainly be their next targets. Public opinion is gradually swinging in favor of
civil rights for homosexuals, with an ever increasing number accepting the idea that
homosexuality might be innate. True or not, this is politically important because Americans will
be loathe to discriminate against people for something which is demonstrably not their fault.

Recently, Wildmon sent out to members of the AFA a statement of the principles
which he claims guide the AFA's "attitudes and actions in opposing the normalization
of homosexuality in our society." I think it would be illustrative to examine
those principles and take some time to think about what might lie behind them.

Principles which guide the AFA's opposition to the Gay Agenda:

1. The scripture declares that homosexuality is unnatural and sinful. It is a
sin grievous to God and repulsive to Chrisitians because it rejects God's design
for mankind as heterosexual beings.

First, we should take note of the fact that these principles are to stand against
a "Gay Agenda." There is no effort to explain what this
"agenda" is supposed to be - presumably, readers will read into that whatever
their worst fears about nasty homosexals happen to be. The spectre of "recruitment
of children into the homosexual lifestyle" will probably loom large to many.
Opponents, however, will simply see their attempts to be accepted as normal, healthy
human beings. How many misunderstandings will this ambiguity engender?

The very first words in the very first principle are, predictably enough, "The
scripture." This should be expected, as the AFA is obvioulsy a very conservative
evangelical group which focuses upon the literal reading of an ancient and allegedly
infallible collection of holy texts: The Bible. This book stands
at the forefront of everything they do, collectively and individually, and we cannot
hope to understand their actions or motivations unless we keep that in mind at all
times. It doesn't matter how silly the rest of us think that is - they couldn't take
their bible more seriously than they already do.

Homosexuality as Sin

The second thing to note is that homosexuality is immediately defined as "unnatural
and sinful" - thus eliminating any possibility that homosexuality might have
a biological/genetic component. Of course not all of the scientific data is in for
us to know for sure what might constitute the origin of homosexuality or sexual orientation
in general, but it is important to keep in mind that as far as the AFA is concerned,
the matter has been decided. I suspect that even hard scientific data would not sway
them from their prejudiced and dogmatic position. How do you really argue with someone
who has already made up their mind before you've even opened up your mouth?

We should also take careful note of the fact that "homosexuality" is
not clearly defined by them. This might seem to be irrelevant - after all, doesn't
everyone already know what it is? But in fact, there are two sides to homosexuality:
the basic orientation of being physically, emotionally, and psychologically attracted
to members of the same sex, and then the act of engaging in sexual relations with
members of the same sex. Both are quite separate - a person can do one without the
other.

Many mainstream Christian denominations acknowledge this fact, accepting that
people might have a homosexual orientation while only condemning homosexual acts.
Thus, it is OK for a person to "be" homosexual so long as they do not act
upon their inclination. It is an open matter as to what the AFA is actually condemning,
but presumably they condem it all, including the basic orientation. This is probably
not the most biblically sound position to take, especially if you read the text as
literally as they do. This because the Bible specifically condemns the act
of homosexuality, "men lying with men as with women," and not merely the
desire.

2. Though there may be many influences in a person's life, the root of
homosexuality is a sinful heart. Therefore, homosexuals have only one hope of
being reconciled to God and rejecting their sinful behavior - faith in Jesus
Christ alone. AFA seeks to use every opportunity to promote and encourage the
efforts of ex-gay ministries and organizations.

Once again, we find the AFA emphasizing "sin" as the basis for homosexuality.
It is common to find such an emphasis in general among evangelicals - it is inherent
in their dogma that we are all sinners and that we must all fight against sinful
tendencies in order to look good in the eyes of their god. Human beings are wretched
simply by virtue of their existing, and some are a bit more wretched than others.

The standard exclusivist line is also found here - the idea that only through
Jesus Christ can a person attain any degree of goodness or ever reach God. This,
of course, excludes any other religion as having any real value.

3. It is the duty of individual Christians and Christ's Church corporately to
bring the gospel to homosexuls and to speak out against the acceptance of sin in
our culture.

Here we see advocacy of the actions which many freethinkers and nontheists find
most annoying: prosyletization and attempts at conversion. Of course Christians of
any sort have and should have the right to say their mind about their religion and
about homosexuality. However, experience has clearly demonstrated that many Christians
cannot remain simply at the "speaking their mind" stage and progress quickly
to being agressive and arrogant.

However, it goes further than that - the goal of the AFA is revealed here as not
merely being opposed to some mysterious "gay agenda," but the very acceptance
of homosexuals into society as normal people. To preach against accepting a human
being for who they are is to preach a form of hatred and bigotry, exactly the charge
they level against their critics. The AFA has claimed that their opposition is not
to individuals, but to the "gay movement." However, it is clear that by
opposing the acceptance of gays in society, they are mounting a campaign against
individual people, not a faceless movement.

4. We oppose the gay movement's efforts to convince our society that their
behavior is normal because we fear the judgment of God on our nation.

In this instance, we can see some of the fear and desperation hiding behind their
opposition to homosexuality - they aren't just trying to save some sinners, but they
fear that their "loving" god will punish the entire nation. This is not
at all unlike the claims of Pat Robertson earlier this year that Florida, specifically
the Orlando area, would suffer disasters and destruction due to their tolerance and
even acceptance of homosexuals. Thus, we see now that Robertson was not stepping
entirely out of line from the extremist circles in which he moves.

It is also important to notice the positively primitive idea of morality which
this fourth point presumes. Evidently, this god of theirs is not simply interested
in punishing the actual perpetrators of sin by casting them into Hell after they
die. Instead, this "loving" god will punish the entire nation corporately
as one, as if all were to be made responsible for the actions of any one. This was
a common idea in primitive tribes when members were thought to belong more to the
body of the tribe and wasn't quite as differentiated as a uniuqe individual. Since
the Enlightenment, we have learned to only hold people responsible for the things
which they do, not for the things done by others. In our society, we promote the
concept of personal responsibility and no longer punish whole families
or towns for the actions of one person - but clearly, the AFA does not think that
their god has progressed nearly so much. Pity.

5. The gay movement is a progressive outgrowth of the sexual revolution of the
past 40 years and will lead to the normalization of even more deviant behavior.

Conservative evangelicals regularly rail against the recent changes in sexual
mores in America. It is uncertain exactly what sort of vision of sexuality they have
for the rest of us, but I believe we can expect it to be rather restrictive and lacking
imagination. They certainly wouldn't have anyone engaging in acts the least bit unusual
or experimental - only their vision of sexuality would be permitted in our lives.

We should also take note of the fact that they see homosexuality as one step on
a "slippery slope" of deviant behavior - it isn't at all unusual for the
far right to equate homosexuality with pedophilia, and we can reasonably suspect
that this is what they mean by the above.

6. The gay movement's promotion of same-sex marriage undermines the
God-ordained institution of marriage and family which is the foundation of all
societies.

Here we first see their attack upon efforts to legalize the unions of same-sex
couples. As far as they're concerned, it doesn't matter if a couple is truly loving
and caring, creating a nurturing relationship in which they can both grow. Of course,
they do not take personal responsibility for this opposition - instead they make
it clear that they are simply obeying the dictates of their god.

For them, marriage isn't a human institution created for humans, it is instead
created by their god for its own purposes. It is unfortunate that they should make
the claim that their sort of marriage has formed the foundation of all societies,
since that simply isn't true. Even the Old Testament which they so revere describes
a society in which polygamy, not monogomy, is the norm.

7. We oppose the efforts of the gay movement to force its agenda in education,
government, business and the workplace through law, public policy and the media.
Our strong opposition is a reasoned response to the gay movement's aggressive
strategies.

Once again we need to remember that the AFA has not clearly explained what they
mean by "gay agenda," so we cannot be absolutely sure what they think is
being "forced" in society. All that has been mentioned specifically is
the "acceptance" of homosexuality as "normal." Evidently, it
is their belief that homosexuals should be stigmatized, marginalized, and
pushed away from the rest of us for no other reason than for their personal
attraction to members of the same sex.

It isn't simply that they do not want to "accept" homosexuality as "normal"
- if that were all, fewer people would care. Instead, they want to make sure that
no one in society accepts homosexuality as normal in any fashion.
It is true that gays have been somewhat "aggressive" in their efforts,
but certainly no more (and often quite a bit less) aggressive than activists in other
civil rights movements. The AFA's opposition here is quite reminiscent of the oppostion
mounted by groups like the KKK, another good Christian organization,
to civil rights for blacks. They, too, fought the concept of accepting blacks living
and working with whites as being "normal."

8. We oppose the effort to convince our culture that becuase individuals
participate in homosexual behavior, they have earned the right to be protected
like racial and other minority groups.

Now the AFA chooses to be specific for once, singling out homosexual behavior
rather than homosexual orientation or homosexuality "in general." All previous
statements simply menionted homosexuality, and presumably refered to both behavior
and orientation. Here, however, they single out behavior - clearly because Americans
will be less sympathetic to providing civil rights protections to chosen behavior
than to internal inclinations. Americans will be more likely to permit discrimination
based on behavior than on thoughts or feelings.

This tactic, however, amounts to little more than a dishonest bait-and-switch
with the issues. Where necessary, they will speak specifically about homosexual behavior
- but at all other times, they mean both behavior and orienation. Once discrimination
against homosexual behavior is accepted in principle, discrimination against homosexuality
in general can be enacted.

The fact of the matter, though, is that there exists ample precedent for prohibiting
discrimination based on both behavior and thoughts/feelings - in the area of religion.
Religion itself encompasses a great deal of behavior which is itself predicated upon
certain thoughts/feelings - and Americans recognize the value in protecting all of
it. These Christians will happily accept this protection for their beliefs/actions,
but they are quick to deny them to others.

9. While we are resolute in our opposition to the gay movement, we recognize
the importance of maintaining Christian integrity in all our efforts. By God's
grace we will reject the temptation to become bitter or hateful in our words or
actions.

Well, they certainly haven't maintained integrity in general even in this document,
but I don't know what they mean by "Christian integrity,"
and that might change matters. I've often encountered evangelical Christians who
appear to have little problem in being disingenuous or downright
deceitful in their efforts to prosyletize. They may be taking seriously
Paul's admission of deception when he said that he became "all things to all
people" in the effort to spread the message of Christ. To be all things to all
people in the case meant not being himself, but merely being whatever he thought
others wanted to see in for the sake of his goal. Perhaps that is what is meant by
"Christian integrity"? I can imagine that quite a few Christians would
be offended at such a dishonest appropriation and smearing of their name.

It's also worth noting that they admit the temptation to hatred towards gays in
both words and actions. Now, if they could only admit to regularly giving in to that
temptation, they'd be well on their way to healing the wounds they have caused our
nation.

10. Finally, we seek faithfulness more than victory. We work with the
confidence that the one true Sovereign God of the Bible will fulfill His
purposes.

I'm not quite sure how to take this final principle. Possibly, they are saying
that it doesn't so much matter that they are victorious in their efforts to push
gays back in the closet, so long as they themselves remain true to their religious
faith. This may be an early attempt by Wildmon to prepare his people for an eventual
defeat on this issue.

Here we have seen the details of what the AFA advocates to its members and I hope
that I have done a fair job at revealing some of the assumptions and premises which
necessarily lie behind those principles. It doesn't do to simply and passively observe
the statements of an organization like the AFA, even if you disagree with them. We
should instead strive to achieve a greater understanding of what we are really in
store for if we buy into those principles. Only then we will know what we are up
against and what we have to do in order to offer the nation a more rational and compassionate
alternative.